By Jonah Goldberg
Friday, January 06, 2017
It is a natural human tendency to want all good things to
go together and all bad things to go together. That’s why we don’t like hearing
that Hitler built great roads and was kind to animals, or that Mahatma Gandhi
could be petty and nasty. In other words, we hate hearing good things about our
villains and bad things about our heroes.
This sort of thinking is downstream of tribalism. The
essence of tribal thinking boils down to: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend,
and the friend of my enemy is my enemy.”
Politics has its own kind of tribalism as well, bending
facts and principles to partisan loyalties.
The clearest sign that one has given over to a kind of
tribal partisanship is when someone — or whole groups of people — cannot
countenance inconvenient truths.
In the 1990s, for example, feminists had laid down a
series of arguments about sexual harassment. Then Bill Clinton got in trouble.
Rather than maintain the principles they’d been asserting or acknowledge the
facts they found regrettable, they rallied to Clinton’s defense. In their rush
to help him, they left behind the baggage of their credibility.
Which brings me to Julian Assange and the issue of
Russian hacking.
Donald Trump and many of his supporters are having a hard
time acknowledging the following: Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, is an
avowed enemy of the United States who has openly admitted — and acted on — his
animosity toward America. A onetime TV host for Russia Today, a Vladimir
Putin–directed propaganda network, he is, if not in the employ of Russia, then
objectively in service to it.
The government of Russia, through surrogates and proxies,
meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, much as it has done in numerous
other countries. The Russians used WikiLeaks as a very effective tool for their
mischief. That mischief probably had some effect on how the election played
out. Russia, under Putin’s authoritarian rule, seeks to undermine the
legitimacy of American and Western democracy and to weaken NATO.
Democrats and many people in the media are having a hard
time admitting the following: All of the election-related documents leaked to
and by WikiLeaks have been authentic and pertain to legitimate issues for news
organizations to explore. Much of the evidence for Russia’s meddling may in
fact be circumstantial or hard to prove unequivocally.
The appointed leadership of the U.S. intelligence
community, under Barack Obama in particular, has been politicizing intelligence
(downplaying ISIS and Islamic terrorism generally, hyping the extent of
al-Qaeda’s degradation, soft-peddling Iran’s intentions, etc.). Skepticism
toward what they say on the way out the door is warranted (though perhaps not
in the way Trump has expressed it). Even if Russia meddled in the election,
Trump was legitimately elected.
Now, I consider all of these things to be true. But that
leaves me — and many like me — in the middle of a partisan shooting war.
Trump and his subalterns have found themselves in the
position of rehabilitating Assange as some kind of heroic truth-teller, because
they feel it necessary for political reasons.
In 2010, Sarah Palin rightly described Assange as “an
anti-American operative with blood on his hands.” This week, she apologized.
In 2010, with a bit of hyperbole, Newt Gingrich declared:
“Julian Assange is engaged in terrorism. He should be treated as an enemy
combatant.” This week, Gingrich told Sean Hannity (one of Assange’s most
prominent fans these days) that Assange is a “down-to-earth, straightforward
interviewee.”
In 2010, Michael Moore put up $20,000 for Assange’s bail
— he’d been charged with rape in Sweden — because “there is a concerted attempt
to stop . . . anybody that is trying to do the job of telling us the truth.”
Now, Moore says Trump has no right to be president because of Russia’s use of
WikiLeaks’s truth-telling.
The Huffington Post
was initially enthralled by WikiLeaks, running pieces with such headlines as
“Let Us Now Praise WikiLeaks.” Now, the Huffington
Post’s hyperventilating threatens to suck the oxygen out of the atmosphere.
Of course, people are allowed to change their minds when
new facts present themselves. But those facts should be relevant.
The problem is that the most pertinent facts — about
Assange, Russia, etc. — have not changed. The only truly relevant new fact is
that Assange is a useful tool for Republicans, and all other facts must be bent
— on the left and right — to fit that new reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment